Friday round-up

Justice Thomas’s silence at oral argument continues to garner commentary.  The editorial board of the New York Times seeks to draw a connection between recent questions about the Justice’s possible conflicts of interest and his effectiveness as a judge, arguing that “[h]ow Justice Thomas comports himself on the bench is a matter of ethics and effectiveness, simultaneously.”  The board also contends that by engaging in open-minded exchanges with lawyers, Justice Thomas “would show his dedication to the court’s impartiality and to its integrity as an institution.”  Writing for Politics Daily, Andrew Cohen describes what he characterizes as the “growing political and legal pressure” on Justice Thomas and the Court to end a different kind of silence:  regarding “conflicts of interest and the reasons why the justices recuse themselves (or, more pointedly, don’t) from certain cases.”    Finally, the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review has a post on its website that reflects on yesterday’s New York Times Room for Debate blog on the Justice’s silence (which Amanda covered on Thursday’s round-up).

In brief:

Posted in: Everything Else

CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY